Are we fortune’s playthings? Does a divinity shape our ends? Such concerns packed themselves tightly within the “nature versus nurture” debate, which was raging in the East Coast intellectual circles that my father frequented. Not limited to the domain of natural science, the debate had religious, social and philosophical overtones. Were the poor stricken with poverty because they were born without moral fiber, or had their degraded environment corrupted them? The answer mattered. If nature dictated our destiny, there was no use spending money on social programs, education or better housing for society’s unfortunates, since what they were, they were, and there was no changing it. But if the destinies of the poor could somehow be reshaped by sufficient amounts of nurture, then charity became paramount. For many of the more odious social philosophers of the day, an impoverished child removed from the dirt and filth of his home, scrubbed clean, clothed and taught his ABC’s, would inevitably regress to the low condition of his birth.
